| Will Shinzo Abe Succeed with Constitutional Changes to Militarize Japan and Further Destroy the Yen? Posted: 14 May 2013 12:38 PM PDT As noted previously Shinzo Abe Seeks Constitutional Changes for a More Militaristic, Authoritarian Japanese Society. Today's question is: Will Abe Succeed? The answer boils down to election math. Japan News shows 63 and 100 are crucial figures in upper house election. 
click on chart for sharper image
Resolving the problems of the divided Diet and revising the Constitution depend on two key numbers--63 and 100.
The House of Councillors election this summer will determine whether the ruling bloc will wrest control of the Diet's upper chamber from the opposition or whether the opposition bloc will retain dominance.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's economic policy also will be put to a test in the election. If he wants to press ahead with his policies with little opposition, the ruling parties must gain 63 seats to win a simple majority in the upper house.
For the other major issue--revision of the Constitution--the ruling bloc needs to gain 100 seats to ensure a two-thirds majority, essential to move this issue forward.
The number of uncontested seats of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition partner New Komeito in the House of Councillors is 59--50 LDP seats and nine for Komeito.
The upper house has 242 seats, so if the two parties win 63 seats in the upper house election, their combined total will be 122 seats. This will mean the ruling bloc will hold a simple majority in both houses, making it easier for the Abe administration to govern.
The uncontested seats of the four parties that support revising the Constitution--the LDP, Nippon Ishin no Kai (Japan Restoration Party), Your Party and the New Renaissance Party--is 62. As a two-thirds majority of 162 seats is needed to move ahead with the revision process, the four parties need to win at least 100 seats.
If these parties can obtain the cooperation of Komeito, which has shown a cautious attitude toward constitutional amendment, the two-thirds hurdle will be cleared if they win 91 seats. The House of Councillors (upper house) election is in July. Wikipedia explains ... The 23rd Elections to the House of Councillors for the upper house of the National Diet, the legislature of Japan, is expected to be held in July, 2013. The House of Councillors is elected by halves to six year terms. In 2013, the class of Councillors elected in 2007 will be up. The House of Councillors outcome will determine just how crazy Japan is likely to get. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| Wine Country Conference Speaker Presentations All Posted (Hussman, Chanos, Martenson, Pettis, Mauldin, Mish) Posted: 14 May 2013 11:26 AM PDT In case you missed it, please note that all of the presentations at the Wine Country Conference have now been posted. They are about 45 minutes each except for my short opening remarks. - Mike "Mish" Shedlock Conference Welcome Remarks
- Chris Martenson: A Grand Experiment: Q&A with John Mauldin
- John Mauldin: Unsustainability: Q&A with Lauren Lyster
- Jim Chanos: China: The Edifice Complex: Q&A with Lauren Lyster
- Mike "Mish" Shedlock: A Brief Lesson in History: Q&A with Chris Martenson
- John Hussman: An Unstable Equilibrium
Speaker presentation material, Yahoo! Finance media interviews, and associated articles on Advisor Perspectives are now available online at Wine Country Conference Speaker Slides. If you enjoy the videos and slides please consider making a Donation to the Les Turner ALS Foundation. Specify " Mish Campaign" on the donation to earmark funds for research. All told, we raised nearly $500,000 for ALS research, subject to final audit. $100,000 of that came from a very generous matching donation from the Hussman Foundation. Thanks again for a successful 2013 WCC and we look forward to many more! The 2014 conference will raise money for autism research and programs. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| UK Does Not Need EU or Vice Versa; Problem Entirely in Cameron's Head Posted: 14 May 2013 10:01 AM PDT Wolfgang Münchau writing for the Financial Times correctly asserts Lord Lawson is right – Britain does not need Europe In discussing the pros and cons of Britain's membership of the EU, the most important point to remember is this: the terms of an exit are freely negotiable. This means that the economic consequences will depend to a large extent on those exit terms.
In his article in the Times last week, Lord Lawson, a former UK chancellor, argued that the regulatory costs of the single market for the British economy exceed the economic costs of an exit. As a consequence he favours an exit. Is the analysis correct? Does the conclusion logically follow?
I do agree with most of his analysis, especially his point that, for the UK, the single market carries higher costs than benefits. For the EU as a whole, the single market has been a macroeconomic non-event. Its impact on aggregate gross domestic product is statistically imperceptible.
David Cameron, Britain's prime minister, may also find it easier to negotiate favourable exit terms than a treaty change. The latter would be needed if he wanted to put substance to his goal of a fundamental change in Britain's relationship with the EU. It would have to be agreed by all members, their parliaments, and it would need to pass in several referendums.
[Mish Note: This is why I said Cameron was being disingenuous about calling for a referendum. One of the conditions he placed on the referendum was successful renegotiation of a new treaty, something Cameron has to know is not going to happen, at least along the lines of what the UK wants. See Cameron Faces Cabinet Crisis of His Own Making; Purposely Self-Inflicted Wounds]
The legal basis for an exit clause is softer than for a treaty change. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, one of the two treaties known together as the Lisbon Treaty, provides the option of an exit.
Lord Lawson's strongest argument relates to the changing nature of the EU. If Britain decided to remain a member, it would find itself pushed to the outside as the eurozone integrates. The financial transactions tax and banking union are two early examples of an integration that occurs without Britain's participation. There will be many more. The euro is what splits the EU – or rather the British decision not to join it. The rest is an inevitable denouement.
The EU's incipient banking union may be too slow to resolve the eurozone crisis, but potent enough to drive a wedge between the eurozone and the UK. A banking union means that the eurozone will ultimately end up with its own financial centre.
My overall conclusions, however, concur with his. There may be reasons why the UK may wish to remain a member of the EU. But whatever they are, they are not economic. Problem Entirely in Cameron's Head For some reason Cameron is wedded to the idea the UK belongs in the EU without ever adequately explaining why. Avoidance of nannycrat rules and regulations alone is well worth the cost (if any) of an exit. But there really is no cost, only benefits, if the UK negotiates a successful exit. And the price for staying in will be expensive. Sooner or later the EU is going to impose a Financial Transaction tax that will be hard for London to avoid. There will be further rounds of inane rules and regulations on food, on energy, on imports, on everything. Moreover, Cameron may lose the election to a Labor party that may embrace silly tax schemes as well as other inane ideas. In short, there are all kinds of things that can go wrong if the UK stays in, and there is little that can go wrong if the UK negotiates reasonable exit terms. And it is actually in everyone's interest to do just that. The problem is entirely in Cameron's head. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
Postări
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu